DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
Claims 2, 5-8, 10, 13-20, 26, 32 are cancelled.
Claims 1, 9, 21-25, 27-31 are amended.
Claims 1, 3-4, 9, 11-12, 21-25, 27-31, 33-34 are pending.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 01/13/2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 3-4, 9, 11-12, 21-25, 27-31, 33-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Segev (WO 2018102247) in view of Kerner (US 20210041549).
Regarding Claims 1, 9, Kerner teaches the following limitations:
A system for Wi-Fi sensing comprising: (Segev – [0025] Some demonstrative embodiments may be used in conjunction with a WLAN, e.g., a WiFi network. [00207] In some demonstrative embodiments, the one or more measurement values corresponding to the first ranging measurement may include a value corresponding to a ToA of the first UL NDP, and a value corresponding to a ToD of the first DL NDP, [0032] Reference is now made to Fig. 1, which schematically illustrates a block diagram of a system 100, in accordance with some demonstrative embodiments.)
PNG
media_image1.png
458
611
media_image1.png
Greyscale
A method for Wi-Fi sensing, the method comprising: (Segev – [0025], [0207], [00306] Reference is made to Fig. 5, which schematically illustrates a method of ranging measurement, in accordance with some demonstrative embodiments.)
a sensing initiator/responder including at least one transmitting antenna, (Segev – [00156] As shown in Fig. 3, STA 302 may transmit to AP 340 a request message 312, e.g., an FTM request message, to request to perform a ranging measurement, e.g., at a VHTz mode. [00157] As shown in Fig. 3, AP 340 may transmit to STA 302 an acknowledge (ACK) message 313 to acknowledge receipt of request message 312. [00158] As shown in Fig. 3, AP 340 may transmit to STA 302 a message 314, e.g., an FTM response message, including an indication of an ID, e.g., an RID or a UID, allocated to STA 302 by AP 340, e.g., to be used during VHTz measurement phase 320 and/or during a High Efficiency .1 laz (HEz) measurement phase. [00334] Example 18 includes the subject matter of any one of Examples 1-17, and optionally, comprising a radio, and one or more antennas.)
at least one receiving antenna, and (Segev – [00334])
at least one processor, wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute instructions to: (Segev – [00335] Example 19 includes a system of wireless communication comprising an initiating station (STA), the initiating STA comprising one or more antennas; a radio; a memory; a processor;)
cause the at least one transmitting antenna to transmit a sensing trigger message; (Segev –
[0156-0158], [00334])
receive, via the at least one receiving antenna, (Segev – [0156-0158], [00334])
a sensing transmission transmitted in response to the sensing trigger message; (Segev – [0156-0158])
wherein the sensing transmission is a null data PPDU (NDP); (Segev – [00162] As shown in Fig. 3, the VHT measurement may include transmission of an Uplink (UL) NDP 322 from STA 302 to AP 340. [00163] As shown in Fig. 3, the VHT measurement may include transmission of a downlink (DL) NDP 324 from AP 340 to STA 302. [00164] As shown in Fig. 3, the VHT measurement may include transmission of an NDP feedback 326 including the ID, e.g., RID, of STA 302 from AP 340 to STA 302. [00165] In one example, NDP feedback 326 may include measurement results of the VHT measurement. [00166] For example, the measurement results may include, for example, information of a ToD of DL NDP 324, and information of a ToA of UL NDP 322, for example using Channel State Information (CSI), for example, a matrix for every subcarrier of NDP 322.)
generate a time stamp from a time determined according to a timing indication corresponding to a time of reception of the sensing transmission, wherein the time stamp indicates when the sensing transmission was valid; and (Segev – [0156-0158], [0005] A Fine Timing Measurement (FTM) Protocol, e.g., in accordance with an IEEE 802.11 Specification, may include measuring a Round Trip Time (RTT) from a wireless station (STA) to a plurality of other STAs, [00208] In some demonstrative embodiments, the value corresponding to the ToD of the first DL NDP may include a ToD parameter, for example, a ToD time stamp of the first DL NDP, e.g., as measured by the responding STA. [00209] In some demonstrative embodiments, the value corresponding to the ToA of the first UL NDP may include a ToA parameter, for example, a ToA time stamp of the first UL NDP, e.g., as measured by the responding STA.)
generate an indication message, wherein the indication message includes the sensing measurement based on the training field of the NDP and the time stamp from the time determined according to the timing indication corresponding to a time of reception of the sensing transmission. (Segev – [0156-0158], [00208-00209], [00206] In some demonstrative embodiments, the one or more measurement values corresponding to the first ranging measurement may include one or more measurement values based on the first UL NDP, and one or more measurement values based on the first DL NDP, e.g., as described below. [00207] In some demonstrative embodiments, the one or more measurement values corresponding to the first ranging measurement may include a value corresponding to a ToA of the first UL NDP, and a value corresponding to a ToD of the first DL NDP, e.g., as described below. Segev does not explicitly teach “training field”.)
Segev does not explicitly teach the following limitations, however Kerner, in the same field of endeavor, teaches:
perform a sensing measurement on the sensing transmission by analyzing a training field of the NDP; (Kerner – [0107] Accordingly, such channel estimation sequences may be useful for radar-like applications (e.g., sensing range, angle, motion, etc. of reflector 801). For example, in legacy WLAN standards, the long training field (LTF) (e.g., the legacy-LTF) may be used for channel estimation. [0139] As shown, the frame includes a 2 orthogonal frequency division multiplexing (OFDM) symbol legacy short training field L-STF, a 2 OFDM symbol L-LTF (e.g., which may be used for channel estimation and sensing))
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the NDP transmission of Segev with the L-STF/L-LTF of Kerner in order to perform radar-like WLAN legacy type sensing (Kerner – [0107], [0139]).
Regarding Claims 3, 11, Segev further teaches:
wherein the sensing measurement comprises Channel State Information (CSI). (Segev – [0166])
Regarding Claims 4, 12, Segev further teaches:
wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute instructions to cause the at least one transmitting antenna to transmit the indication message to a remote processing device. (Segev – [00333-00334])
Regarding Claims 21, 27, Segev further teaches:
wherein the timing indication comprises an identifiable pattern of bits within the sensing transmission. (Segev – [00206-00209], [00333], [0046] In some demonstrative embodiments, processor 191 and/or processor 181 may include, for example, a Central Processing Unit (CPU), a Digital Signal Processor (DSP),)
Regarding Claims 22, 28, Segev further teaches:
wherein the timing indication comprises an identifiable bit within the sensing transmission. (Segev – [0046], [00206-00209])
Regarding Claims 23, 29, Segev further teaches:
wherein the timing indication comprises a first bit of a training field of the NDP. (Segev – [0046], [00206-00209], [00333] Segev does not explicitly teach “training field”.)
Segev does not explicitly teach the following limitations, however Kerner, in the same field of endeavor, teaches:
training field (Kerner – [0107], [0139] As shown, the frame includes a 2 orthogonal frequency division multiplexing (OFDM) symbol legacy short training field L-STF, a 2 OFDM symbol L-LTF (e.g., which may be used for channel estimation and sensing) If the training field only consists of a timing indication, it would be the first bit.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the transmission of Segev with the L-STF/L-LTF of Kerner in order to perform radar-like WLAN legacy type sensing (Kerner - [0107], [0139]).
Regarding Claims 24, 30, Segev further teaches:
wherein the timing indication comprises an identifiable signal pattern within the sensing transmission. (Segev – [0156-0158], [00206-00209])
Regarding Claim 25, 31, Segev further teaches:
wherein identifying the timing indication includes identifying a time at which the sensing transmission was received. (Segev – [0156-0158], [00206-00209])
Regarding Claims 33-34, Segev further teaches:
wherein the time stamp is indicative of a time of validity of the sensing transmission. (Segev – [0156-0158], [00206-00209])
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Pages 6-12, filed 01/13/2026, with respect to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 have been fully considered and are not persuasive. Applicant’s arguments attempt to narrow the limiting terms “time stamp” and “valid” more than what is presented in the claims and the instant specification. Applicant argues, see page 7, that the independent claims “claim a single time stamp for sensing, generated only when the sensing transmission is received at the sensing initiator.” The examiner disagrees, this interpretation is not explicitly or implicitly disclosed. When mapping “time stamp” the examiner relied upon the applicant’s definition in the instant specification [0069] “A term "time stamp" may refer to an indication of time which may be applied to a sensing transmission or a sensing measurement”. The time of arrival (ToA) and time of departure (ToD) taught by Segev meet this definition as cited.
The applicant implies, see page 8, that Segev does not teach “the time stamps are used to indicating when the sensing transmission was valid”. The examiner disagrees, the applicant offers no explicit determination of validity other than simply having a timing indication. The BRI of the limiting term “valid” is mapped to the determination of a ToD/ToA parameter capable of being measured.
The applicant argues, see page 8, “neither the timing indication nor the time stamp are sent between devices (e.g., from the sensing responder to the sensing initiator, as required by Segev)”. The examiner disagrees, this interpretation is not explicitly or implicitly disclosed. In contrast, claim 1 recites “wherein the indication message includes the sensing measurement based on the training field of the NDP and the time stamp from the time determined according to the timing indication corresponding to a time of reception of the sensing transmission”. The applicant defines message as a transmission in the instant specification [0056] “A term "message" may refer to any set of data which is transferred from the sensing device to the remote device (or vice versa). The message may be carried in a frame and that frame can be a Medium Access Control (MAC)-layer Protocol Data Unit (MPDU) or an Aggregated MPDU (A-MPDU). The frame in the form of an MPDU or A-MPDU may be transferred from the sensing device to the remote device (or vice versa) as a sensing transmission. In an example, the transmission may be carried out by Physical (PHY) layer and may be in the form of a PHY-layer Protocol Data Unit (PPDU).” This makes sense because the applicant’s disclosure is utilizing IEEE timing standards to perform timing measurements, sending data through a transmission with no timing indication or time stamp would render the sensing device inoperable.
The applicant argues, see page 9-11, “Segev teaches that the token fields may be configured to indicate if the measurement is valid or not, and/or to which measurement the reported measurement values, e.g., the corresponding to the ToA and the ToD, belong (as described in the paragraphs [0247] and [0305] of Segev as below). These are the only references to validity in Segev.” The examiner disagrees, as stated above, the term “valid” under BRI is mapped to the determination of a ToD/ToA parameter capable of being measured not the further determination of validity described in the paragraphs [0247] and [0305] of Segev as suggested.
The applicant argues, see page 11-12, that the combination of Segev and Kerner would require an inventive step. The examiner disagrees, Segev teaches NDP sensing measurements and Kerner teaches training fields that are analyzed for sensing. The examiner has further cited Kerner [0107] to further clarify how one of ordinary skill in the art would have modified Segev for the useful radar-like applications of the training fields used for channel estimation.
Applicant’s arguments, see Page 12, filed 01/13/2026, with respect to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 have been fully considered and are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the dependent claims are allowable due to the dependency on the independent claims. As noted above, the examiner maintains Segev in view of Kerner teaches the independent claims and therefore the dependent claims remain rejected.
Applicant's remaining arguments amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims is understandable and distinguishable from other inventions.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRANDON JAMES HENSON whose telephone number is (703)756-1841. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00 am - 5:00 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Resha H. Desai can be reached at (571) 270-7792. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/BRANDON JAMES HENSON/Examiner, Art Unit 3648
/RESHA DESAI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3648